Debate and Discussion

Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings? I know what I think; but, I'm interested in knowing what ya'll think, so have at it…

Animal testing is almost always a touchy subject. Personally im ok with it, if it helps mankind continue and rid the world of illness then whats the problem.I grew up with a vegaterian for a mother, and she said to me ‘If you can eat one animal, why not eat the other’ and ive put that into everything, if we are going to kill an animal to eat it, why not kill it to help save lives.Its like the way we are now trying to genetically modify pigs so they will grow the same heart as us. Thus helping shorten the heart transplant lists.

Mr ChappersAnimal testing is almost always a touchy subject. Personally im ok with it, if it helps mankind continue and rid the world of illness then whats the problem.I grew up with a vegaterian for a mother, and she said to me ‘If you can eat one animal, why not eat the other’ and ive put that into everything, if we are going to kill an animal to eat it, why not kill it to help save lives.Its like the way we are now trying to genetically modify pigs so they will grow the same heart as us. Thus helping shorten the heart transplant lists.

Hey thats pretty much my theory… except i consider humans animals too… lol… if you can test on a monkey you should be able to test on people. If you can eat a dog … hey the guy was not a productive member of society… yes i have weird thoughts…

Do you get a partner with that or do you have to have one before hand lol.. It would be weird going there and they are all like “and here is your partner.. while you are in the ”act“ she will be recording everything on this little notes board.”

By that I mean testing in a way where you make sure that the animal will be okay, and not in any pain. Where you would take care of it like any pet… even though they're for testing purposes. After all, they're there to SAVE human lives, the least you could do is to make sure that they don't lead a painful life at your hands.

Did you know in some testing they used to jab lipstick and other things into the animals' eyes and such?That's not testing, that's just plain toture.

Thankfully now in most states they've outlawed that kind of “testing”.

I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)

maritalblissIs it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings? I know what I think; but, I'm interested in knowing what ya'll think, so have at it…

Insanity, TnT etc… The D&D forum is about stating your reasons for feeling a certain way and contributing to the discussion, nut just being pithy for the fun of it. That sort of thing makes this forum pointless… We may as well have it so that someone suggests an idea and all the morons come in and vote “Yay” or “Nay”.

The animal testing debate is VERY complicated, at its heart there is the assumption that human life is the most valuable type of life. This is reflected in secular humanism, but has its origins situated firmly in old religious thought. Is human life truly the most valuable kind? Of course not, that's naive. Fundamentally your own life is the most valuable kind (because you have no other), the lives of those you care about come second etc. But for most people the lives they care about include animal lives as well, this isn't irrational the way a humanist would suppose, this is more sensible because the lives around you are the ones that have the biggest impact and impression on you, not some imagined and artificial construct like “humanity”. But in the same way that “humanity” is a projection of ourselves onto the rest of the world human population, our care for animals in general is also a projection- of our feelings for the animals (non human) we know and our feelings in regards to “life” as we know it as well.

And so because of that, both those for and against animal testing, despite whatever pretentions to reasoned arguments they espouse, are actually speaking from a largely “emotional” standpoint. lol!So in the end, whatever side you support, understand that "reason" is only a small art of the equation, it's probably completely divorced from it if you think about it: The testing either happens or it doesn't. It does help increase our understanding of the natural world and lead to prolonging lives that will actually end anyway. It also causes a lot of unnecessary pain through medical torture and ends lives prematurely (that would end anyway).

At the heart then we have this: knowledge through pain. When you stop pretending with the rest, those are your key points, the anything else is mostly emotional baggage and false arguments. Is knowledge gained through the knowing infliction of pain acceptable? Hmm… The answer to that question is even more complicated than my justification for this reduction.

ozoneoceanJebus! Maybe provide some reasons why you feel that way Vindi? :)

The animal testing debate is VERY complicated, at its heart there is the assumption that human life is the most valuable type of life. This is reflected in secular humanism, but has its origins situated firmly in old religious thought. Is human life truly the most valuable kind? Of course not, that's naive. Fundamentally your own life is the most valuable kind (because you have no other), the lives of those you care about come second etc.

Ozone, my man, I don't know about you, but my friends and family are human, too. If the argument is human versus animal then there you go.

Reasons? Come on people. We eat animals every day, we kill them and use their bodies for everything from clothing to food to medicine. This whole thing about animal testing is really just a feel good cause and is blind to the reality.

Burning house: save your kid or your dog?

People who are not abject morons are going to choose their kid.

Why is that? Isn't animal life JUST AS VALUABLE AS human life? Of course it isn't.

Animal testing is used to develop all sorts of things so that humans do not pay the price for it, including vaccines.

It's not a case of animal life VS human life though. Because in the end that's a case of how you feel about the value of those lives and what “life” means to you in general. For many people it's different. ;)-so that's not a universal point to make about animal testing.

And the gain is not the saving of life, although in some cases it involves the "prolonging" of life (which is a very different thing). This is because of course all life terminates anyway. Even killing animals in testing isn't entirely central because if you don't kill them they will still die anyway. :)-human VS animal, Life VS Death are all incorrect here; Misunderstandings of the issue, the “kiddy” version of the argument.

This is why it has to come down to the ethics of "knowledge through suffering“ (a refinement from ”pain“). All else are spurious side issues.

Now, ”knowledge through suffering"… We all benefit from this, civilisation has prospered through it in ways that are too numerous to contemplate, and we still do. Without layering on rationalisations and value judgements, what is your position in regards to this? How much infliction of suffering can you condone in order to extract knowledge?

Personally, I find that a difficult question to answer, I try and fall back on rationalisations etc. I actually can't answer it and I'll acknowledge that fact! I would have to go on a case by case basis, or even general disapproval but “out of sight, out of mind”- a terrible cop-out, but unless I'm the one actually doing the testing, I think that's the most honest, well reasoned answer I can give.

If the product benifits me of course I'm for it I am grateful to the puppies that have deoderant and antifreeze poured in their eyes so that I will know its not safe to put deoderant and antifreeze in my eyes. Or the baby seals that are clubbed with baseball bats in order to assure that the bat I'm buying wont just break or will stand up in a fight if I'm ever attacked by a rabid baby seal. God bless those brave men and women who bravely experiment on gods lesser creatures.

ozoneoceanIt's not a case of animal life VS human life though. Because in the end that's a case of how you feel about the value of those lives and what “life” means to you in general. For many people it's different. ;)-so that's not a universal point to make about animal testing.

And the gain is not the saving of life, although in some cases it involves the "prolonging" of life (which is a very different thing). This is because of course all life terminates anyway. Even killing animals in testing isn't entirely central because if you don't kill them they will still die anyway. :)-human VS animal, Life VS Death are all incorrect here; Misunderstandings of the issue, the “kiddy” version of the argument.

This is why it has to come down to the ethics of "knowledge through suffering“ (a refinement from ”pain“). All else are spurious side issues.

Now, ”knowledge through suffering"… We all benefit from this, civilisation has prospered through it in ways that are too numerous to contemplate, and we still do. Without layering on rationalisations and value judgements, what is your position in regards to this? How much infliction of suffering can you condone in order to extract knowledge?

Personally, I find that a difficult question to answer, I try and fall back on rationalisations etc. I actually can't answer it and I'll acknowledge that fact! I would have to go on a case by case basis, or even general disapproval but “out of sight, out of mind”- a terrible cop-out, but unless I'm the one actually doing the testing, I think that's the most honest, well reasoned answer I can give.

Not quite, that'd be DemonSaintDante.I'm merely getting to the route of the issue :)It's like simplifying an algebraic equation, an interesting exercise. On the surface we see “animal Testing” and form an opinion about it, but what is really happening there? And what is there really to object to?Cute furry animals getting killed in horrible ways to make shampoo safe? -That's surface stuff.What about rats being used in AIDS or malaria vaccine research to help human beings? -More surface.

We have to face facts that “animal” is only a matter of personal definition, both in what creatures it refers to (and yes in the case of Dr Mengele animal included Jews, Gypsies, Disabled, Russian POWs, Homosexuals…), and the way we feel about those creatures: to some, non human animals are less than dust; to others they're literally aspects of living gods (sacred cows).

We also have to face facts that death in the equation is meaningless since it's an unavoidable constant that can only be put off momentarily with great difficulty or accelerated with great ease.

What you're left with is what you're actually after: Knowledge.And the objectionable thing you do to gain it: Inflicting suffering.

Whether the testing is on humans or non-humans it's pretty much the same thing in essence. SO I suppose it should be dealt with the same way. How important is the need for the information to justify the level of suffering? Can the suffering be minimised to still achieve a satisfactory result? Is it possible to reward or compensate the subject? Is consent able to be given and what will that mean anyway? Is there an alternative method of gaining the desired information that avoids the use of a subject altogether?

Those seem like decent ethical questions… But if factors like “cost/benefit” analyses come into play and “supply and demand”, then you start to “dehumanise” things a bit.

Whether the testing is on humans or non-humans it's pretty much the same thing in essence. SO I suppose it should be dealt with the same way. How important is the need for the information to justify the level of suffering? Can the suffering be minimised to still achieve a satisfactory result? Is it possible to reward or compensate the subject? Is consent able to be given and what will that mean anyway? Is there an alternative method of gaining the desired information that avoids the use of a subject altogether?

This is how I respond to Lynn's subject…If there's some kind of misunderstanding about me not explicitly including the term “moral” I'd be very surprised since it's obviously implicit in the idea that the infliction of suffering should be evaluated. ;)

ahh animal testing, one of the worlds most hop topics for debate, personally i find it wrong and a sickening experience for the animals and the people involved, but i have a little view on life, you cant gain anything without loss, if science is to progress and find cures for illnesses there will be casualties, maybe they be animal or men…It may not be a happy and easily acceptable statement, but nothing in life is, if you look at everything we take for granted in our lives and look into how these things came to be you will see that some sort of life was lost in the process, remember how electricity was invented?

neohoboif you look at everything we take for granted in our lives and look into how these things came to be you will see that some sort of life was lost in the process, remember how electricity was invented?

TnTComicThat's a yes or no question. You've danced and danced, now go ahead and answer it.

Any question that deals with morals is going to be subjective. The OP is asking thread participants for their answer.

My answer is yes, my morals allow for the experimentation on animals to yield data for the betterment of humans.

And as I said, this isn't a “yes” or “no” forum. :PThere would be no point to it. I answered intelligently, to the best of my ability, carefully considering the question and all the aspects of what it implies. Your “answer” by contrast is rather… uninteresting; a bit simplistic. Sorry, but without properly considered reasons, there doesn't seem much point to even posting it. :)

You're the one that started critiquing “answers”, not me lol!

I'd like to know what exactly you mean by “morals” for a start. And why exactly do yours allow for this sort of testing? That would be more interesting I think than just stating that they do. “Betterment” too, what does that mean in this context? Medical testing? Cosmetics? Mechanical testing…? Just any sort of testing at all?

Well… Like ozone and few other people said. Its complicated. Morally, I can say its wrong, because it inflicts pain and suffering. But at the same time… I can say its right because it help the researches on dieases and new drugs.

But in my view, animal testing isnt necessary since now we have advanced techology to recreate cells and suchs, we have massive database of informations, and its unlimited to what we can do to obtain informations. So… Why not use that ablity?

Of course, when we look at it, its expensive. So (like someone already mentioned) companies prefer to use animal testing because its cheaper. Mices are the most common animal that you will find in expirements. It doesnt change my standing on my morals because they're small animals and arent Humans. Because in the end, no matter how you put it, we are animal too.

ozoneoceanAnd as I said, this isn't a “yes” or “no” forum. :PThere would be no point to it. I answered intelligently, to the best of my ability, carefully considering the question and all the aspects of what it implies. Your “answer” by contrast is rather… uninteresting; a bit simplistic. Sorry, but without properly considered reasons, there doesn't seem much point to even posting it. :)

You're the one that started critiquing “answers”, not me lol!

I'd like to know what exactly you mean by “morals” for a start. And why exactly do yours allow for this sort of testing? That would be more interesting I think than just stating that they do. “Betterment” too, what does that mean in this context? Medical testing? Cosmetics? Mechanical testing…? Just any sort of testing at all?

Jesus Criminy, no… you haven't answered the question. You've rephrased the question, you've posed more questions, but you haven't answered the original question.

Court of law, you on the stand, the Prosecution asks you, “Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?”

If you responded as you have here, he would say, “yes or no, please, Mr. Ocean.”

At which point, you would say?

It IS a yes or no question. But because it is a question of morals, there is no right or wrong answer.

Honestly, would you ramble on and on if someone asked you “is chocolate delicious?”